I actually appreciate the distinction between PG-13 and R, in most
cases. With violence, 'R' tells me that there's enough of a squick
factor that will repel my wife and to a lesser extent me, that is, if
the overall film doesn't make it worthwhile (as I certainly think it is
in plenty of movies).
With nudity, my attitude is pretty much the more the merrier, but as I
said, it's good to know in advance that a movie isn't acceptable for
viewing on the corporate shuttle-bus. (As for the f-word stuff, I think
the MPAA needs to lighten the fuck up.)
It's the sometimes arbitrary threats of NC17, for stuff that isn't
close to being pornographic, that really annoy me.

Couldn't agree with you more.
So, we've rolled our way up to 2009, and in spite of the prudes on the
MPAA, just about anything goes in movies, and even on cable
television, for that matter. Are we pretty much inured to violence,
sex, and dirty words? Does nothing shock us anymore? What would be
considered a "controversial" film nowadays?

I was shocked at The Aristocrats, although I understand I am in the
minority. I saw all the warnings in the theater before I went in, but I
thought I was pretty shock-proof so I didn't take them too seriously.
There's a TV show that consistently shocks me: Nip/Tuck. It's rated MV
LAS, if I remember correctly. Every episode I come away shaking my head
at the over-the-top situations, both sexual and violent. And yet: I love
it.
So, even for me, there's no universal.

"The Aristocrats" is a study in the excellence of editing. Comedy is,
after all, about timing. And Gillette hit you right up front with George
Carlin's incredibly gross, yet to me, hysterically funny version joke.
Nothing in the movie outgrossed that (corn kernels, for god's sake), not
even Gilbert Gottfried.

CONTROVERSIAL FILMS in 2009?
That's a good question--why qualifies as "controversial today"? Is
there anything that hasn't been seen in films (or even television) yet?
I understand that people were shocked by THE ARISTROCRATS, though the
shocking content was basically words (in the content of a joke)...But
let's think of it another way...what film content is still considered
by today's terms CONTROVERSIAL (which is a relative term, because it
always depends on whose standards something is being measured by...).
One example: fictional films that are not pornographic by adult film
standards featuring =couples having unsimulated sex: SHORTBUS, 9 SONGS,
ANATOMY OF HELL

Oh yeah, Bob Saget blew my precious little mind for good in THE
ARISTOCRATS.
One last frontier seems (to me at least) to be mainstream religion.
The uproar over Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST seemed in part
because it rehashed old prejudices, in addition to dwelling almost
pornographically on the Christ's torture. Other mainstream films,
though, have taken a different tack and questioned traditional
religious subjects -- like Scorcese's LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and
even Bill Maher's recent RELIGULOUS -- and there was a bit of a to-do
over them as well. Are mainstream religion and full-on sex (plus
perhaps animal maltreatment) the only things that get people in the
U.S. really upset nowadays?

How about the notion that a woman could have an abortion and not be
punished for it (by getting depressed, suicidal, etc.)? I can't think
of another film like FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (1982), where a girl
gets an abortion and still ends up happy with a guy.

The discussion set me to speculating on a religious equivalent to
indulging our prurient interests.
The flipside may be seeing who can be the most righteous, resulting in
a kind of pornography of the spirit. Then, again, inquisitions may
have their own "carnal" delights.
I would contend that humans "need" some degree of "tut,tutness" if
only to go "tut, tut" to those who go "tut, tut".

Re <40>, <46>, what I hope we can work towards is some way of killing
off the MPAA ratings system, and other means of self-censorship and
"official" systems in favor of a completely pluralistic system like
the rating web sites you and others mentioned.
More importantly, the following discussion revealed that parents'
concerns, real or assumed, are the tail that wags the dog of film
content and ratings of all kinds. It's one more manifestation of the
whole "it's for the children" excuse to infantilize modern life, and I
really resent it.

How does the NC-17 rating compare to NR or X? Does the X-rating still
exist, and if it does, what does a film have to contain to qualify for it?
Are there official rating distinctions between X, XX, or XXX?

THE X RATING: The X rating no longer exists--and as for XX and XXX.
The MPAA never copyrighted the "X" rating, which essentially meant that
anyone could rate their film X. NC-17 is copyrighted. The reason
NC-17 came about is the X rating, which at one time (late 1960s, early
1970s) was actually used for films (including non-pornographic ones)
that dealt with adult themes (MIDNIGHT COWBOY, which won Best Picture,
was rated X, though by today's standards it would receive an R).

The WELL® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of The Well Group,
Inc.
1195 Park Avenue, Suite 206; Emeryville, CA 94608 | (415) 343-5731 | Email
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service